Hearing loss Board decisions

The Board has determined that the Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral knee disability and bilateral hearing loss require additional development due to the need for a VA examination.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate examination and conversion of audiometric results from ASA units to ISO-ANSI standards. The Veteran's claims for bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus will be reconsidered based on this additional evidence.

The Board has remanded the case due to scheduling issues and the need for a Statement of the Case (SOC) on the low back disability service connection claim.

The Veteran's appeal for an initial compensable rating for right ear hearing loss and service connection for left ear hearing loss was dismissed. The Veteran withdrew his appeals as to these issues. Service connection for lymphomatoid papulosis was granted.

The Veteran's claims for service connection and increased evaluations have been denied. The claim of service connection for right pes planus has been reopened, but the evidence does not meet the criteria for a higher evaluation.

The Board found that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss disability is not related to service, and thus denied his claim.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining a supplemental medical opinion regarding the Veteran's right ear hearing loss and considering his in-service noise exposure.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims of service connection for bilateral hip disability and left ear hearing loss disability, finding that there is no evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The Board finds that the evidence is in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is related to active service, and therefore grants service connection for bilateral hearing loss.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development to determine the relationship between his current left ear hearing loss and in-service noise exposure, as well as to obtain a new VA audiological examination. The issues of service connection for left ear hearing loss and an initial rating for right ear hearing loss are also on appeal.

The Veteran's appeal is denied as his bilateral hearing loss disability does not warrant a rating in excess of 30 percent.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for a video conference hearing. The issues of rating for bilateral hearing loss, service connection for asthma, service connection for a bilateral knee condition, and service connection for sleep apnea are pending.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and a blood disorder, finding that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen these claims.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, including whether these conditions are related to service.

The Board found no current tinnitus disability, denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability due to lack of evidence meeting VA standards, and denied service connection for TBI as the Veteran's symptoms are not consistent with in-service injury. The Veteran is therefore not entitled to service connection for any of these conditions.

The Veteran's claim for a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss has been denied, and his claim for an increased rating for PTSD remains pending.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current bilateral hearing loss disability is related to his military service and grants service connection for this condition.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is not related to his military service and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes and does not have a current left leg burn disability etiologically related to active service.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional development and examination, including obtaining relevant VA treatment records and arranging an audio examination of the Veteran.